The Miss rule

The miss rule serves its purpose, look back to some of old footage from the 80's when players where missing on purpose by miles and putting their opponent in a tricky position ie to take the shot or put back in.

The rule is sound but the implementation is not. Take two examples from yesterday, Peter Ebdon against Ronnie O'Sullivan - Peter had a pretty simple escape but choose an extremely difficult route instead so he wouldn't leave a ball on. On this occasion the ref was right to keep calling a miss as Peter was gaining an advantage by missing.

However in the other SF Neil was in a very difficult snooker in which he had to come off 4 cushions just to hit the red, his first attempt was too short and therefore was right to be put back. The next attempt he could not have got any closer, off 4 cushions and there was enough pace. The difficulty of the snooker was proven by the fact he kept missing until the frame was over.

It was the wrong call by Jan and if he had of actually followed the rule properly a miss wouldn't have been called a second time.

It would seem the referees will call a miss every time which is not what the rule was designed for. They need to start thing about -

The difficulty of the snooker
If the player has taken the easiest route to get out of the snooker
If they are trying to gain an advantage by missing

Thoughts?

case_master wrote:The miss rule serves its purpose, look back to some of old footage from the 80's when players where missing on purpose by miles and putting their opponent in a tricky position ie to take the shot or put back in.

The rule is sound but the implementation is not. Take two examples from yesterday, Peter Ebdon against Ronnie O'Sullivan - Peter had a pretty simple escape but choose an extremely difficult route instead so he wouldn't leave a ball on. On this occasion the ref was right to keep calling a miss as Peter was gaining an advantage by missing.

However in the other SF Neil was in a very difficult snooker in which he had to come off 4 cushions just to hit the red, his first attempt was too short and therefore was right to be put back. The next attempt he could not have got any closer, off 4 cushions and there was enough pace. The difficulty of the snooker was proven by the fact he kept missing until the frame was over.

It was the wrong call by Jan and if he had of actually followed the rule properly a miss wouldn't have been called a second time.

It would seem the referees will call a miss every time which is not what the rule was designed for. They need to start thing about -

The difficulty of the snooker
If the player has taken the easiest route to get out of the snooker
If they are trying to gain an advantage by missing

Thoughts?

all the miss rules needs is common sense Alan Chamberlain wasent everyone cup of tea but he did Imply his own opinion on the Miss rule and follow the guidelines of the rule as its now been re written.

other Refs still implement it how it was 5 years ago when they had to award it and no common sense had a place in the interpretation.

Jan was a joke yesterday there was no easy escape for that snooker and the white went past the red so in that case the rule says it shouldnt be a miss as there no easier escape route as well.

chamberlain

jan

I don't have a strong opinion on the miss rule to be honest but on yesterday's example where Robbo missed it 6 or 7 times, I think there should have been some discrepancy as Williams basically gained a huge advantage from the roll of the cloth which wasn't from a great shot that he made to put Robbo in trouble, but good on Jan for admitting his fault.

Bourne wrote:I don't have a strong opinion on the miss rule to be honest but on yesterday's example where Robbo missed it 6 or 7 times, I think there should have been some discrepancy as Williams basically gained a huge advantage from the roll of the cloth which wasn't from a great shot that he made to put Robbo in trouble, but good on Jan for admitting his fault.

I didn't know he admitted he got it wrong

I hold my hand up on the Robertson miss. When he played the 2nd attempt it all of a sudden didnt look such a hard shot
about 18 hours ago via web

After attempt 3 and 4 I knew I made a mistake. #bugger
about 18 hours ago via web

fair play to jan

Jan Verhass

thank you

now sonny/stalin put that in your pipe and smoke it

Fair play Jan

Shoutout to Miss Knowitalls...
Such a misunderstood/misapplied rule!
I confess confusion and have a very basic question...
Is it true that if a player requires snookers
to win he cannot lay a successful one and
have it called a miss and the cueball replaced?

Issue cropped up yesterday with no ref/rulebook on hand.

Cheers.

=o)

Noel

Yeh no miss rule when it goes to snookers required stage

Bourne wrote:Yeh no miss rule when it goes to snookers required stage

Thanks mate.
Applies equally to both or just player in the shithole?

=o}

Noel

Yeh i'm pretty sure it's both players, it's the way I play it when i'm in the club, someone might need to confirm

Lucky enough, if the miss was on when snookers were needed frames would never end